House repubs to target Social Security and Medicare cuts

[Lakhota]

 

[Lakhota]

 

[easyt65]

The New House Speaker has already declared cuts to SS & Medicate are off the table.

Why has't this liberal propaganda / false narrative / Democrat-snowflake lie / conspiracy theory thread been moved to 'Conspiracy Theories' or the liberal troll Taunting Area?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That's a steaming load right there. Neither program can long exist under the current circumstances. Something has to change and pretending everything's all right is the stuff of fever swamps, where beliefs trump reality.

Republicans are dishonest and liars, we see proof of that on this forum daily.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Good luck with that.
Dumb ass.

If Republicans had the votes in Congress they'd eliminate both programs.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The New House Speaker has already declared cuts to SS & Medicate are off the table.

Why has't this liberal propaganda / false narrative / Democrat-snowflake lie / conspiracy theory thread been moved to 'Conspiracy Theories' or the liberal troll Taunting Area?

According to his fellow Republicans the new House speaker is likewise a liar.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Raising retirement age is NOT "cutting benefits".
And what is YOUR answer?

It literally is.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It literally is.

Yes it is.

Take for example two people that live until 77.

Person A born after 1960 reaches FRA age at 67, if that person draws $1,500 a month in SS that is (1500 * 12 * 10) = $180,000 to live on over those 10 years.

Person B born after a grandfathered age adjustment which raises FRA to 70, if that person draws $1,500 a month in SS that is (1500 * 12 * 7) = $126,000 to live on over those seven years.

Of course raising the FRA (and early retirement ages) is a cut in benefits as the intent to to pay out less. To say it's - to paraphrase - "not a cut because benefits won't be reduced for those already receiving benefits" is setting a false limit on what cut means.

WW

 

[kyzr]

Yes it is.

Take for example two people that live until 77.

Person A born after 1960 reaches FRA age at 67, if that person draws $1,500 a month in SS that is (1500 * 12 * 10) = $180,000 to live on over those 10 years.

Person B born after a grandfathered age adjustment which raises FRA to 70, if that person draws $1,500 a month in SS that is (1500 * 12 * 7) = $126,000 to live on over those seven years.

Of course raising the FRA (and early retirement ages) is a cut in benefits as the intent to to pay out less. To say it's - to paraphrase - "not a cut because benefits won't be reduced for those already receiving benefits" is setting a false limit on what cut means.

WW

We went thru this yesterday. RAISING THE RETIREMENT AGE IS NOT A CUT.

WHY? Because the younger folks will live longer and collect longer than their parents, DUH.

 

[WorldWatcher]

We went thru this yesterday. RAISING THE RETIREMENT AGE IS NOT A CUT.

WHY? Because the younger folks will live longer and collect longer than their parents, DUH.

We had a very nice discussion, but it didn't include an justification as to why lowering the amount of benefits received for an apples to apples comparison evades the description as a "cut". Lowering the amount of benefits received from FRA to a given year of death is most certainly a decrease in the benefits payout, i.e. a "cut".

The parameter of the example is both live to 77 for an apples to apples comparison. Saying Person A lives to 77 and Person B lives longer is changing the time frame of references.

Whether benefits are reduced over a specific period requires that the time period be common for the comparison.

Let's take a more extreme example to highlight the difference.

Let's say I'm in the military and "retire" age 38, and can draw 50% of base pay for the rest of my life (which say is 77). Say that is $20,000 * 39 years = $780,000.

Congress changes the rules. You can "retire" after 20 years at 50%, but you can't draw the pay until reaching the age of 65. The same calculation results in a payout of benefits over 12 years totaling $240,000.
.
.
.
.
Which number is bigger for the same age of death $780K or $240K? Reducing the number of years of edibility for benefits is a cut.

WW

 

[easyt65]

We went thru this yesterday. RAISING THE RETIREMENT AGE IS NOT A CUT.

WHY? Because the younger folks will live longer and collect longer than their parents, DUH.

Its withholding money from those who have been forced to put into it, raising the access age while betting more people will die before ever being able to collect, allowing the govt to keep the money.

Young people live longer? With Govt madates / actions like forced experimental #DropDead vaccines where perfectly healthy young people are keeling over after getting the vax, younger people are less likely to live longer.

 

[Ralph Norton]

It literally is.

It literally is not.
If you got $1,000 a month and they reduced it to $800/ month - THAT is a cut.
Raising retirement age may reduce total payments received by the time you die (and may not) but then, you'll be dead so you won't be around to bitch about it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

...Raising retirement age may reduce total payments received...

Which is literally a cut.

WW

 

[hadit]

Republicans are dishonest and liars, we see proof of that on this forum daily.

So are democrats, but we all knew that already. That shattering sound was the rock you threw breaking the window in your house.

 

[Ralph Norton]

If Republicans had the votes in Congress they'd eliminate both programs.

No, they wouldn't.
Eliminating either (but especially SS) would be political suicide.

 

[Orangecat]

House repubs to target Social Security and Medicare cuts​

That means they are trying to get rid of those cuts, you illiterate imbecile.

 

[Ralph Norton]

Which is literally a cut.

WW

SS is meant to supplement your finances in retirement.
If you're dead, payments cease and thus nothing is cut.

 

[Jessica-stormlover]

Imagine getting up every morning, logging onto a message board and arguing how am I going to fuck a hard working old person out of their retirement? Well, that's you. You believe that someone that paid into ssi for 30 or 40+ years should just work until they freaking die. How sick. Evil. It is time to do the opposite and raise the monthly payments so they can afford the rent, food and what ever. They fucking earned it. I am so sick of hearing about how we must punish the American people.

 

[WorldWatcher]

SS is meant to supplement your finances in retirement.
If you're dead, payments cease and thus nothing is cut.

I agree. That's why I will have 4 separate revenue streams in retirement, my wife 4 more. That's 8 streams for the two of us. None individually overly large, but taken together we won't be wealthy, but neither will we need be living on cat food. If something happens to me she will have my 401K and survivor benefits on the other 3.***

But that doesn't change the fact that the intent of raising the retirement age is to reduce benefit payouts, literally a cut.

WW
.
.
.
*** Which if she ever really realizes I'm worth more dead than alive, I'm in trouble.

 

[Ralph Norton]

I agree. That's why I will have 4 separate revenue streams in retirement, my wife 4 more. That's 8 streams for the two of us.

But that doesn't change the fact that the intent of raising the retirement age is to reduce benefit payouts, literally a cut.

WW

If your boss said he was going to "cut" your salary, what does that mean to you?
Most rational people would say it means your paycheck will be smaller. NO ONE is saying your SS check will be smaller. You will just have to work a little longer to get it. As long as it's there, I'm OK with that.
If you want to see those SS payments you are counting on, SOMETHING has to be done.
What would YOU suggest?